|
Post by nicko on Jul 2, 2010 17:14:05 GMT 1
But your comment was totally inane. Unless it was a joke then I apologise and hahaha. Do you really think this about what political parties are in power? From what I understand the different economic ideologies used are all flawed in some major way. How a Government reacts is important, but I have a feeling that Labour would be in the same situation and would be pulled down in to a pile s**** however hard they tried to stop it. absolutely right and i have been saying it for years. whoever gets in its the govt, they have little influence over "the industrial and military comlex" The "special interests" that, I think, Adam Smith wrote about. I was wrong saying that all economic ideologies have major flaws, there's dozens of them and they can't all be bad surely?
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 2, 2010 17:51:44 GMT 1
absolutely right and i have been saying it for years. whoever gets in its the govt, they have little influence over "the industrial and military comlex" The "special interests" that, I think, Adam Smith wrote about. I was wrong saying that all economic ideologies have major flaws, there's dozens of them and they can't all be bad surely? i think human beings find the flaws in any political system
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 2, 2010 23:18:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 3, 2010 22:45:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Old Bucks Head on Jul 4, 2010 11:58:36 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 4, 2010 19:24:32 GMT 1
That is a deeply dishonest article. The peak quarter for Irish GDP was Q4 2007 not Q4 2008. Even after Q1 2010 GDP at constant prices is -12.4% from the peak. In fact the source of his information regarding falls in GDP and GNP shows on the same page that average Euro area GDP growth excluding Ireland, is ahead of Ireland's. We have nothing to learn from Monetarism. It won't work. It never has.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Jul 4, 2010 19:50:58 GMT 1
The Sunday Times have been more or less spot on in predicting the doom and gloom over the last 18 months. Todays business section expects an FTSE fall of 600 points imminently (that is about 12.5% I reckon) Hard Hat time
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 4, 2010 20:16:40 GMT 1
The Sunday Times have been more or less spot on in predicting the doom and gloom over the last 18 months. Todays business section expects an FTSE fall of 600 points imminently (that is about 12.5% I reckon) Hard Hat time Title of the thread refers.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 5, 2010 7:59:38 GMT 1
Let's not forget how we got here: it wasn't profligate government spending. Banking reform will get quagmired thanks to entrenched interest groups and corporate cash. Just as it is a good time to get your news by looking for it rather than relying entirely on the stenographers in the media it is also a good idea to expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream. www.bendyson.com/
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 5, 2010 8:21:31 GMT 1
And linking the private sector made economic crisis with income inequality (a subject which excited a few people last month), here's a case study from Iceland. Iceland is so small it only has one university. If the fact that it's GDP has fallen less than Ireland's becomes common currency is it likely that monetarist economists and our present government will decide that the UK needs only one university? It's as sensible as the thinking which currently holds sway. I digress. Read, absorb and make up your own minds: www.lisproject.org/conference/papers/olafsson-kristjansson.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Old Bucks Head on Jul 5, 2010 9:54:40 GMT 1
Let's not forget how we got here: it wasn't profligate government spending. Banking reform will get quagmired thanks to entrenched interest groups and corporate cash. Just as it is a good time to get your news by looking for it rather than relying entirely on the stenographers in the media it is also a good idea to expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream. www.bendyson.com/What is your solution? A return to a command economy?
|
|
|
Post by nickjonesey on Jul 5, 2010 11:15:34 GMT 1
I've been following this thread with interest and must admit that I can see where the items linked to are coming from- however I feel I must add a little balance.
The last few years has showed us that to set up and run your own investments takes a lot of time and can lead to sleepless nights.
Our advice, as always, is to seek professional personal advice and to construct a plan which you are comfortable with. Markets go up and down and the trick is to find the best fund managers available and manage them.
If anyone is genuinely concerned we have an economic update available which has just been released. PM me and i'll gladly email it. It is not as negative as anything here but the corporate viewpoint (which I share) is that if you have a medium to long term view of things and the right personal strategy there are still opportunities.
Differences of opinion make the current system work- everyone is entitled to their own and I respect the contributions on here.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 5, 2010 12:32:00 GMT 1
Let's not forget how we got here: it wasn't profligate government spending. Banking reform will get quagmired thanks to entrenched interest groups and corporate cash. Just as it is a good time to get your news by looking for it rather than relying entirely on the stenographers in the media it is also a good idea to expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream. www.bendyson.com/What is your solution? A return to a command economy? "Expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream" Or choose not to. GDP figures still delayed.
|
|
|
Post by siabod on Jul 5, 2010 13:30:05 GMT 1
I've been following this thread with interest and must admit that I can see where the items linked to are coming from- however I feel I must add a little balance. The last few years has showed us that to set up and run your own investments takes a lot of time and can lead to sleepless nights. Our advice, as always, is to seek professional personal advice and to construct a plan which you are comfortable with. Markets go up and down and the trick is to find the best fund managers available and manage them. If anyone is genuinely concerned we have an economic update available which has just been released. PM me and i'll gladly email it. It is not as negative as anything here but the corporate viewpoint (which I share) is that if you have a medium to long term view of things and the right personal strategy there are still opportunities. Differences of opinion make the current system work- everyone is entitled to their own and I respect the contributions on here. Agree in the main, but when seeking professional advice we run the risk of being steered in the direction most advantageous to the adviser.
|
|
|
Post by Old Bucks Head on Jul 5, 2010 13:39:44 GMT 1
"Expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream" Would you care to elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by nickjonesey on Jul 5, 2010 14:42:46 GMT 1
I've been following this thread with interest and must admit that I can see where the items linked to are coming from- however I feel I must add a little balance. The last few years has showed us that to set up and run your own investments takes a lot of time and can lead to sleepless nights. Our advice, as always, is to seek professional personal advice and to construct a plan which you are comfortable with. Markets go up and down and the trick is to find the best fund managers available and manage them. If anyone is genuinely concerned we have an economic update available which has just been released. PM me and i'll gladly email it. It is not as negative as anything here but the corporate viewpoint (which I share) is that if you have a medium to long term view of things and the right personal strategy there are still opportunities. Differences of opinion make the current system work- everyone is entitled to their own and I respect the contributions on here. Agree in the main, but when seeking professional advice we run the risk of being steered in the direction most advantageous to the adviser. There is good and bad in every profession but I would hope that on most occasions product bias is a thing of the past. Compliance structures and far more rigid regulation has helped to drag up even the worst advisers. It would be a real shame if everyone shared that view and decided against seeking help!
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Jul 5, 2010 17:56:25 GMT 1
Well Mr Gove has just chucked the balls in the air in the Commons hasn't he. A good time to swerve building firms who have just had multi million pound school projects ripped out of their order books
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 5, 2010 22:51:17 GMT 1
Sainsburys are now running a school for schools voucher scheme
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 6, 2010 8:03:23 GMT 1
"Expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream" Would you care to elaborate? Well clearly the website on the link isn't advocating a command economy. Nor is its sister website here: www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/What it is suggesting is that the banking sector is a utility like telecommunications companies and power companies and here is a way of seeking that it behaves like one. I think its a stimulating idea. In Iceland the state banks were privatised they were turned into aggressive risk-taking investment banks by their new owners. That wasn't a necessary consequence of privatisation. "Business as usual" will be the most likely outcome because after the immediate crisis was solved (in my opinion staved off) by aggressive state action the causes of the crisis are rationalised as being state action. It's like saying social security benefits cause poverty. But these dumb-assed notions pass as sagacity in the times we live. "You cannot reason someone out of what they were not reasoned in to." Jonathan Swift
|
|
|
Post by Old Bucks Head on Jul 6, 2010 8:58:44 GMT 1
"Business as usual" will be the most likely outcome because after the immediate crisis was solved (in my opinion staved off) by aggressive state action the causes of the crisis are rationalised as being state action. I agree. Nothing will change. Until the next crisis. Which might be quite soon! I'm not sure that I like the idea of banks being treated as utilities. During the crisis this is exactly how they have been treated. If I'm interpreting it correctly, the article to which you have linked is advocating that banks reserve at 100%? Why cannot banks be allowed to fail? "Expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream", etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2010 9:05:51 GMT 1
[ Why cannot banks be allowed to fail? "Expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream", etc would you be so keen on exposing your mind outside the mainstream if the bank in question was yours, and all your savings, possibly your business ect where tied up inside it? not an expert on this intricacies of the financial sector, but if i had a few thousand pound locked away for my retirement, i would be pretty keen for the government to support them and protect my money/future. just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 6, 2010 9:24:26 GMT 1
Leaving aside issues of the banks may still fail. I'm a pessimist on that.
Also banks have been allowed to fail
There are banks that have been allowed to get too big. By taking them out of the picture you take out whole chunks of the network. Given that there could be a contagion of failure between the big banks I'm not convinced of the ability of economies to re-route economic activity around holes of that size.
As a parallel think of the affects of senile dementia on the brain. For years the loss of brain cells causes the brain to re-route and establish circuits around dead zones to allow the system as a whole to function. There then comes a point where there isn't any spare capacity to re-route. The effects of the disease then becomes rapidly apparent even though it hold some time before.
The massive profits made by banks suggests that there is a certain amount of monopoly power and barriers to entry. There is a tendency to greater concentration too. This makes the re-routing around a series of large bank failures more difficult. This is unfortunate when you consider that people running the riskier activities of the banks don't actually understand the risks they are taking, and are not incentivised to understand them.
The case of Goldman Sachs being more serious in that it misrepresented financial products to its customers.
The proposal regarding transactional accounts mirrors the Chicago Plan of 1933 and seems eminently sensible.
|
|
|
Post by Old Bucks Head on Jul 6, 2010 9:25:43 GMT 1
[ Why cannot banks be allowed to fail? "Expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream", etc would you be so keen on exposing your mind outside the mainstream if the bank in question was yours, and all your savings, possibly your business ect where tied up inside it? not an expert on this intricacies of the financial sector, but if i had a few thousand pound locked away for my retirement, i would be pretty keen for the government to support them and protect my money/future. just a thought. No, I wouldn't be "happy". But that's capitalism! The public need to be made aware of the risks. At present there is a perception that banks are "safe". They're not. If I invest in the stock market then I am aware that I could lose my shirt. Why should a deposit with a bank (an "investment" by another name) be any different?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2010 9:53:59 GMT 1
would you be so keen on exposing your mind outside the mainstream if the bank in question was yours, and all your savings, possibly your business ect where tied up inside it? not an expert on this intricacies of the financial sector, but if i had a few thousand pound locked away for my retirement, i would be pretty keen for the government to support them and protect my money/future. just a thought. No, I wouldn't be "happy". But that's capitalism! The public need to be made aware of the risks. At present there is a perception that banks are "safe". They're not. If I invest in the stock market then I am aware that I could lose my shirt. Why should a deposit with a bank (an "investment" by another name) be any different? yes the public need to be aware of the risks, but the banks need to be aware of their responcibility to those that have savings with them, investments, whatever you wish to call them. if you loose your shirt on the stock market then tough, its your money. when bankers are busy messing up their investments it is other peoples money they are putting at risk. that to me is the crux here. frankly banks should be safe, the banking sector needs to be organised in a way that protects people who do not want to take risks (for smaller dividends) and possibly provides bigger dividends for those that do want to invest in the higher risk sector. surely that way if things go tits up then those that loose their shirt will be the ones who knew the risk and can have no complaints. Sean, your knowledge of this subject is quite frankly amazing
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jul 6, 2010 9:57:59 GMT 1
[ Why cannot banks be allowed to fail? "Expose your mind to ideas outside of the mainstream", etc would you be so keen on exposing your mind outside the mainstream if the bank in question was yours, and all your savings, possibly your business ect where tied up inside it? not an expert on this intricacies of the financial sector, but if i had a few thousand pound locked away for my retirement, i would be pretty keen for the government to support them and protect my money/future. just a thought. You're covered up to £50000 news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7482914.stmMind you, look at where the money comes from....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2010 10:04:04 GMT 1
would you be so keen on exposing your mind outside the mainstream if the bank in question was yours, and all your savings, possibly your business ect where tied up inside it? not an expert on this intricacies of the financial sector, but if i had a few thousand pound locked away for my retirement, i would be pretty keen for the government to support them and protect my money/future. just a thought. You're covered up to £50000 news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7482914.stmMind you, look at where the money comes from.... hasnt the Financial Services Compensation Scheme just been abolished?
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jul 6, 2010 10:06:59 GMT 1
hasnt the Financial Services Compensation Scheme just been abolished? Here's their website. www.fscs.org.uk/
|
|
|
Post by Old Bucks Head on Jul 6, 2010 10:18:45 GMT 1
yes the public need to be aware of the risks, but the banks need to be aware of their responcibility to those that have savings with them, investments, whatever you wish to call them. if you loose your shirt on the stock market then tough, its your money. when bankers are busy messing up their investments it is other peoples money they are putting at risk. that to me is the crux here. frankly banks should be safe, the banking sector needs to be organised in a way that protects people who do not want to take risks (for smaller dividends) and possibly provides bigger dividends for those that do want to invest in the higher risk sector. surely that way if things go tits up then those that loose their shirt will be the ones who knew the risk and can have no complaints. Sean, your knowledge of this subject is quite frankly amazing I suppose it depends what you mean by "safe". Bank deposits could be considered safer than bonds, which are safer than equities, etc. But it's all relative. The safest place to deposit your money is with NS&I. You'd probably have to accept a lower rate of return for the greater security. You too seem to prefer the notion that banks are utilities. I guess it's an issue of ideology. (Re the FSCS. Are you confusing it with the FSA?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2010 10:39:20 GMT 1
[ I suppose it depends what you mean by "safe". Bank deposits could be considered safer than bonds, which are safer than equities, etc. But it's all relative. The safest place to deposit your money is with NS&I. You'd probably have to accept a lower rate of return for the greater security. You too seem to prefer the notion that banks are utilities. I guess it's an issue of ideology. (Re the FSCS. Are you confusing it with the FSA?) mm could be thinking of fsa any ho. im not sure how i think of the banks. i view this from the point of view of someone with no investable money. i use a bank to have my salary paid in and bills paid out and hold the remainder until i need it, usually all gone by day 10 i get little interest and they use what i have in for whatever until i take it out. i dont want any more or less really. i pay monthly bank charges (a lot in my opinon) i therefore expect the service they provide to meet certain standards. isnt this how the majority see / use their bank?
|
|
|
Post by Old Bucks Head on Jul 6, 2010 11:14:37 GMT 1
mm could be thinking of fsa any ho. im not sure how i think of the banks. i view this from the point of view of someone with no investable money. i use a bank to have my salary paid in and bills paid out and hold the remainder until i need it, usually all gone by day 10 i get little interest and they use what i have in for whatever until i take it out. i dont want any more or less really. i pay monthly bank charges (a lot in my opinon) i therefore expect the service they provide to meet certain standards. Given the manner in which you use your account I am surprised that you're paying charges. Is there no way that these charges can be avoided? Perhaps you're being ripped off?
|
|